Charley James Hughes v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00189-CR

CHARLEY JAMES HUGHES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Childress County, Texas
Trial Court No. 8014, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding

December 11, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Charley James Hughes appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating his guilt and

convicting him of the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance.

Upon accepting a guilty plea and following a plea agreement, the trial court placed

appellant on two years deferred adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the

State moved the trial court to adjudicate appellant’s guilt in the cause. After a hearing on

the motion, the trial court found appellant violated at least one condition of his community

supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to serve eighteen months in the
state jail division. Also assessed against appellant was $180.00 in restitution and $340.00

in court costs. Appellant now appeals.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders1 brief.

Through those documents, she certifies to the court that, after diligently searching the

record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying or following the brief and motion are

copies of letters sent by counsel to appellant. They inform him of the Anders brief, provide

him a copy of same, explain there were no arguable issues warranting an appeal, and tell

appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief and right to petition

for discretionary review. So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the clerk’s

and reporter’s records, according to the letters. In turn, this court notified appellant of his

right to file his own brief or response by November 27, 2024, if he wished to do so. To

date, no response has been received.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel

discussed potential areas for appeal. Those areas included 1) sufficiency of the evidence

to support appellant’s probation violations and 2) disproportionate sentencing. However,

she then explained why the issues lacked merit.

We conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s

conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991) (en banc). No issues of arguable merit were uncovered, however.

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. 2

Brian Quinn
Chief Justice

Do not publish.

2 Counsel, shall, within five days after this memorandum opinion is handed down, send appellant

a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one only. Counsel has no
duty to provide further representation to appellant.

3